skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Pancreatic cancer planning: Complex conformal vs modulated therapies

Abstract

To compare the roles of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric- modulated arc therapy (VMAT) therapy as compared to simple and complex 3-dimensional chemoradiotherpy (3DCRT) planning for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. In all, 12 patients who received postoperative radiotherapy (8) or neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (4) were evaluated retrospectively. Radiotherapy planning was performed for 4 treatment techniques: simple 4-field box, complex 5-field 3DCRT, 5 to 6-field IMRT, and single-arc VMAT. All volumes were approved by a single observer in accordance with Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) Pancreas Contouring Atlas. Plans included tumor/tumor bed and regional lymph nodes to 45 Gy; with tumor/tumor bed boosted to 50.4 Gy, at least 95% of planning target volume (PTV) received the prescription dose. Dose-volume histograms (DVH) for multiple end points, treatment planning, and delivery time were assessed. Complex 3DCRT, IMRT, and VMAT plans significantly (p < 0.05) decreased mean kidney dose, mean liver dose, liver (V{sub 30}, V{sub 35}), stomach (D{sub 10}%), stomach (V{sub 45}), mean right kidney dose, and right kidney (V{sub 15}) as compared with the simple 4-field plans that are most commonly reported in the literature. IMRT plans resulted in decreased mean liver dose, liver (V{sub 35}), and left kidneymore » (V{sub 15}, V{sub 18}, V{sub 20}). VMAT plans decreased small bowel (D{sub 10}%, D{sub 15}%), small bowel (V{sub 35}, V{sub 45}), stomach (D{sub 10}%, D{sub 15}%), stomach (V{sub 35}, V{sub 45}), mean liver dose, liver (V{sub 35}), left kidney (V{sub 15}, V{sub 18}, V{sub 20}), and right kidney (V{sub 18}, V{sub 20}). VMAT plans significantly decreased small bowel (D{sub 10}%, D{sub 15}%), left kidney (V{sub 20}), and stomach (V{sub 45}) as compared with IMRT plans. Treatment planning and delivery times were most efficient for simple 4-field box and VMAT. Excluding patient setup and imaging, average treatment delivery was within 10 minutes for simple and complex 3DCRT, IMRT, and VMAT treatments. This article shows significant improvements in 3D plan performance with complex planning over the more frequently compared 3- or 4-field simple 3D planning techniques. VMAT plans continue to demonstrate potential for the most organ sparing. However, further studies are required to identify if dosimetric benefits associated with inverse optimized planning can be translated into clinical benefits and if these treatment techniques are value-added therapies for this group of patients with cancer.« less

Authors:
 [1];  [2];  [1];  [3];  [1];  [1]
  1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA (United States)
  2. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI (United States)
  3. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22577868
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Dosimetry; Journal Volume: 41; Journal Issue: 2; Other Information: Copyright (c) 2016 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; 62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE; BIOMEDICAL RADIOGRAPHY; COMBINED THERAPY; COMPLEXES; KIDNEYS; LIVER; LYMPH; LYMPH NODES; NEOPLASMS; PANCREAS; PATIENTS; PLANNING; RADIATION DOSES; RADIOTHERAPY; STOMACH

Citation Formats

Chapman, Katherine L., Witek, Matthew E., Chen, Hongyu, Showalter, Timothy N., Bar-Ad, Voichita, and Harrison, Amy S., E-mail: amy.harrison@jefferson.edu. Pancreatic cancer planning: Complex conformal vs modulated therapies. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1016/J.MEDDOS.2015.10.002.
Chapman, Katherine L., Witek, Matthew E., Chen, Hongyu, Showalter, Timothy N., Bar-Ad, Voichita, & Harrison, Amy S., E-mail: amy.harrison@jefferson.edu. Pancreatic cancer planning: Complex conformal vs modulated therapies. United States. doi:10.1016/J.MEDDOS.2015.10.002.
Chapman, Katherine L., Witek, Matthew E., Chen, Hongyu, Showalter, Timothy N., Bar-Ad, Voichita, and Harrison, Amy S., E-mail: amy.harrison@jefferson.edu. 2016. "Pancreatic cancer planning: Complex conformal vs modulated therapies". United States. doi:10.1016/J.MEDDOS.2015.10.002.
@article{osti_22577868,
title = {Pancreatic cancer planning: Complex conformal vs modulated therapies},
author = {Chapman, Katherine L. and Witek, Matthew E. and Chen, Hongyu and Showalter, Timothy N. and Bar-Ad, Voichita and Harrison, Amy S., E-mail: amy.harrison@jefferson.edu},
abstractNote = {To compare the roles of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric- modulated arc therapy (VMAT) therapy as compared to simple and complex 3-dimensional chemoradiotherpy (3DCRT) planning for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. In all, 12 patients who received postoperative radiotherapy (8) or neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (4) were evaluated retrospectively. Radiotherapy planning was performed for 4 treatment techniques: simple 4-field box, complex 5-field 3DCRT, 5 to 6-field IMRT, and single-arc VMAT. All volumes were approved by a single observer in accordance with Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) Pancreas Contouring Atlas. Plans included tumor/tumor bed and regional lymph nodes to 45 Gy; with tumor/tumor bed boosted to 50.4 Gy, at least 95% of planning target volume (PTV) received the prescription dose. Dose-volume histograms (DVH) for multiple end points, treatment planning, and delivery time were assessed. Complex 3DCRT, IMRT, and VMAT plans significantly (p < 0.05) decreased mean kidney dose, mean liver dose, liver (V{sub 30}, V{sub 35}), stomach (D{sub 10}%), stomach (V{sub 45}), mean right kidney dose, and right kidney (V{sub 15}) as compared with the simple 4-field plans that are most commonly reported in the literature. IMRT plans resulted in decreased mean liver dose, liver (V{sub 35}), and left kidney (V{sub 15}, V{sub 18}, V{sub 20}). VMAT plans decreased small bowel (D{sub 10}%, D{sub 15}%), small bowel (V{sub 35}, V{sub 45}), stomach (D{sub 10}%, D{sub 15}%), stomach (V{sub 35}, V{sub 45}), mean liver dose, liver (V{sub 35}), left kidney (V{sub 15}, V{sub 18}, V{sub 20}), and right kidney (V{sub 18}, V{sub 20}). VMAT plans significantly decreased small bowel (D{sub 10}%, D{sub 15}%), left kidney (V{sub 20}), and stomach (V{sub 45}) as compared with IMRT plans. Treatment planning and delivery times were most efficient for simple 4-field box and VMAT. Excluding patient setup and imaging, average treatment delivery was within 10 minutes for simple and complex 3DCRT, IMRT, and VMAT treatments. This article shows significant improvements in 3D plan performance with complex planning over the more frequently compared 3- or 4-field simple 3D planning techniques. VMAT plans continue to demonstrate potential for the most organ sparing. However, further studies are required to identify if dosimetric benefits associated with inverse optimized planning can be translated into clinical benefits and if these treatment techniques are value-added therapies for this group of patients with cancer.},
doi = {10.1016/J.MEDDOS.2015.10.002},
journal = {Medical Dosimetry},
number = 2,
volume = 41,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 7
}
  • With traditional photon therapy to treat large postoperative pancreatic target volume, it often leads to poor tolerance of the therapy delivered and may contribute to interrupted treatment course. This study was performed to evaluate the potential advantage of using passive-scattering (PS) and modulated-scanning (MS) proton therapy (PT) to reduce normal tissue exposure in postoperative pancreatic cancer treatment. A total of 11 patients with postoperative pancreatic cancer who had been previously treated with PS PT in University of Pennsylvania Roberts Proton Therapy Center from 2010 to 2013 were identified. The clinical target volume (CTV) includes the pancreatic tumor bed as wellmore » as the adjacent high-risk nodal areas. Internal (iCTV) was generated from 4-dimensional (4D) computed tomography (CT), taking into account target motion from breathing cycle. Three-field and 4-field 3D conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT), 5-field intensity-modulated radiation therapy, 2-arc volumetric-modulated radiation therapy, and 2-field PS and MS PT were created on the patients’ average CT. All the plans delivered 50.4 Gy to the planning target volume (PTV). Overall, 98% of PTV was covered by 95% of the prescription dose and 99% of iCTV received 98% prescription dose. The results show that all the proton plans offer significant lower doses to the left kidney (mean and V{sub 18} {sub Gy}), stomach (mean and V{sub 20} {sub Gy}), and cord (maximum dose) compared with all the photon plans, except 3-field 3DCRT in cord maximum dose. In addition, MS PT also provides lower doses to the right kidney (mean and V{sub 18} {sub Gy}), liver (mean dose), total bowel (V{sub 20} {sub Gy} and mean dose), and small bowel (V{sub 15} {sub Gy} absolute volume ratio) compared with all the photon plans and PS PT. The dosimetric advantage of PT points to the possibility of treating tumor bed and comprehensive nodal areas while providing a more tolerable treatment course that could be used for dose escalation and combining with radiosensitizing chemotherapy.« less
  • We assessed dosimetric differences in pancreatic cancer radiotherapy via helical intensity-modulated radiotherapy (HIMRT), linac-based IMRT, and 3D-conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) with regard to successful plan acceptance and dose to critical organs. Dosimetric analysis was performed in 16 pancreatic cases that were planned to 54 Gy; both post-pancreaticoduodenectomy (n = 8) and unresected (n = 8) cases were compared. Without volume modification, plans met constraints 75% of the time with HIMRT and IMRT and 13% with 3D-CRT. There was no statistically significantly improvement with HIMRT over conventional IMRT in reducing liver V35, stomach V45, or bowel V45. HIMRT offers improved planningmore » target volume (PTV) dose homogeneity compared with IMRT, averaging a lower maximum dose and higher volume receiving the prescription dose (D100). HIMRT showed an increased mean dose over IMRT to bowel and liver. Both HIMRT and IMRT offer a statistically significant improvement over 3D-CRT in lowering dose to liver, stomach, and bowel. The results were similar for both unresected and resected patients. In pancreatic cancer, HIMRT offers improved dose homogeneity over conventional IMRT and several significant benefits to 3D-CRT. Factors to consider before incorporating IMRT into pancreatic cancer therapy are respiratory motion, dose inhomogeneity, and mean dose.« less
  • Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) achieves excellent local control for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC), but may increase late duodenal toxicity. Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) delivers intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with a rotating gantry rather than multiple fixed beams. This study dosimetrically evaluates the feasibility of implementing duodenal constraints for SBRT using VMAT vs IMRT. Non–duodenal sparing (NS) and duodenal-sparing (DS) VMAT and IMRT plans delivering 25 Gy in 1 fraction were generated for 15 patients with LAPC. DS plans were constrained to duodenal D{sub max} of<30 Gy at any point. VMAT used 1 360° coplanar arc with 4° spacingmore » between control points, whereas IMRT used 9 coplanar beams with fixed gantry positions at 40° angles. Dosimetric parameters for target volumes and organs at risk were compared for DS planning vs NS planning and VMAT vs IMRT using paired-sample Wilcoxon signed rank tests. Both DS VMAT and DS IMRT achieved significantly reduced duodenal D{sub mean}, D{sub max}, D{sub 1cc}, D{sub 4%}, and V{sub 20} {sub Gy} compared with NS plans (all p≤0.002). DS constraints compromised target coverage for IMRT as demonstrated by reduced V{sub 95%} (p = 0.01) and D{sub mean} (p = 0.02), but not for VMAT. DS constraints resulted in increased dose to right kidney, spinal cord, stomach, and liver for VMAT. Direct comparison of DS VMAT and DS IMRT revealed that VMAT was superior in sparing the left kidney (p<0.001) and the spinal cord (p<0.001), whereas IMRT was superior in sparing the stomach (p = 0.05) and the liver (p = 0.003). DS VMAT required 21% fewer monitor units (p<0.001) and delivered treatment 2.4 minutes faster (p<0.001) than DS IMRT. Implementing DS constraints during SBRT planning for LAPC can significantly reduce duodenal point or volumetric dose parameters for both VMAT and IMRT. The primary consequence of implementing DS constraints for VMAT is increased dose to other organs at risk, whereas for IMRT it is compromised target coverage. These findings suggest clinical situations where each technique may be most useful if DS constraints are to be employed.« less
  • The primary objective of this study was to compare dosimetric variables as well as treatment times of multiple static fields (MSFs), conformal arcs (CAs), and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) techniques for the treatment of early stage lung cancer using stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). Treatments of 23 patients previously treated with MSF of 48 Gy to 95% of the planning target volume (PTV) in 4 fractions were replanned using CA and VMAT techniques. Dosimetric parameters of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0915 trial were evaluated, along with the van't Riet conformation number (CN), monitor units (MUs), and actual andmore » calculated treatment times. Paired t-tests for noninferiority were used to compare the 3 techniques. CA had significant dosimetric improvements over MSF for the ratio of the prescription isodose volume to PTV (R{sub 100%}, p < 0.0001), the maximum dose 2 cm away from the PTV (D{sub 2} {sub cm}, p = 0.005), and van't Riet CN (p < 0.0001). CA was not statistically inferior to MSF for the 50% prescription isodose volume to PTV (R{sub 50%}, p = 0.05). VMAT was significantly better than CA for R{sub 100%} (p < 0.0001), R{sub 50%} (p < 0.0001), D{sub 2} {sub cm} (p = 0.006), and CN (p < 0.0001). CA plans had significantly shorter treatment times than those of VMAT (p < 0.0001). Both CA and VMAT planning showed significant dosimetric improvements and shorter treatment times over those of MSF. VMAT showed the most favorable dosimetry of all 3 techniques; however, the dosimetric effect of tumor motion was not evaluated. CA plans were significantly faster to treat, and minimize the interplay of tumor motion and dynamic multileaf collimator (MLC) motion effects. Given these results, CA has become the treatment technique of choice at our facility.« less
  • Purpose: Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) affords the potential to decrease radiation therapy-associated toxicity by creating highly conformal dose distributions. However, the inverse planning process can create a suboptimal plan despite meeting all constraints. Multicriteria optimization (MCO) may reduce the time-consuming iteration loop necessary to develop a satisfactory plan while providing information regarding trade-offs between different treatment planning goals. In this exploratory study, we examine the feasibility and utility of MCO in physician plan selection in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). Methods and Materials: The first 10 consecutive patients with LAPC treated with IMRT were evaluated. A database ofmore » plans (Pareto surface) was created that met the inverse planning goals. The physician then navigated to an 'optimal' plan from the point on the Pareto surface at which kidney dose was minimized. Results: Pareto surfaces were created for all 10 patients. A physician was able to select a plan from the Pareto surface within 10 minutes for all cases. Compared with the original (treated) IMRT plans, the plan selected from the Pareto surface had a lower stomach mean dose in 9 of 10 patients, although often at the expense of higher kidney dose than with the treated plan. Conclusion: The MCO is feasible in patients with LAPC and allows the physician to choose a satisfactory plan quickly. Generally, when given the opportunity, the physician will choose a plan with a lower stomach dose. The MCO enables a physician to provide greater active clinical input into the IMRT planning process.« less